Speeches

When regulation is reformed, the mandatory choice of the best solution from an environmental and social point of view should be included. This should be the starting point from which there may be weighty exceptions: if sustainability aspects are ignored, the provider should be obliged to explain why these aspects are not relevant in this particular case. Already the MEAT (most economically advantageous tender) makes it possible to choose the best value for money rather than the cheapest price. Innovative procurement should be used much more. They mean defining a goal and flexible choice of means when carrying out the procurement, in which case the implementation can be adjusted to meet the customer's goal in the best possible way. For example, the lighting of a space can be procured as a service if the objective of the tender is not to determine the number of lamps to be purchased, but rather a bright office building. There are areas where security of supply becomes an important theme in public procurement. Medicinal products and their procurement are one such area. The vast majority of the so-called active ingredients of medicinal products, i.e. up to 80-90% of antibiotics, are manufactured in Asia, mostly in China. To be more self-sufficient in our medicines, we need to build intact, European production chains. However, it is not enough to create supply alone and to require greater storage in the interests of security of supply. Someone also needs to buy medicines made in Europe, even if they are more expensive. Here, too, the leverage of public procurement is key.

Climate change is intensifying and the impacts of climate change are worsening each year. Climate change poses also an economic crisis. The cost of inaction is as high as 10 times the cost of necessary climate adaptation. The European Parliament approved a resolution declaring a climate and environmental emergency in Europe and globally in November 2019 – and rightfully so. Parliament urged the Commission to ensure that all relevant legislative and budgetary proposals are fully aligned with the Paris Agreement by limiting global warming to under 1.5 °C. Despite this, we are still debating political compromises on climate targets while ignoring clear signals from scientists to reach domestic net-zero emissions far before 2050. While I welcome the Commission’s proposal on the 2040 climate target, we are still falling short in aligning it with the 1.5 °C temperature limit. The EU should reach its gross emissions reductions domestically without the inclusion of international carbon credits that severely delay the process and undermine the EU contribution. In addition, we should not rely on carbon removals such as CCS, as we should focus on gross emissions reduction to avoid sidetracks and delays in climate action.

Mr President, poverty is much more than a lack of financial resources. It is exclusion from knowledge, from influencing society and from improving one's own life and health. It is much more difficult to eliminate differences in skills and inequalities than economic inequalities alone, for example through income transfers. It's much slower and much harder then at a later stage of life. Therefore, an essential part of social equality, fairness and social opportunities is adequate, accessible education, which has much more meaning than just professional and competitive. Lifelong learning and the lifelong training of NGOs and education organisations, which are abundantly offered in different Member States and are currently under considerable financial pressure, should also be borne in mind here. I hope that, in addition to Erasmus and vocational training, the Commission will have sufficient opportunities and resources to support this dimension of education and training, which we particularly need in these difficult times, when the world is becoming faster and more complex. Otherwise, we will also face the destruction of democracy.

Madam President, fur is out of fashion. There is no demand in European markets, so the majority of production is exported to Russia and China. There's clear people signalling all over the world and in Europe that fur is not acceptable. Fur is not economic. The direct and indirect expenses to society exceed substantially and are unproductive to our societies. We are using, in various forms, direct and indirect subsidies to fur farming, and the fur farmers are not doing that well. Actually, they should be deliberately forced out of their work because there are much better working possibilities and futures they could achieve with some transitional support and maybe education. But the last point, of course, is the ethical aspect. Do we have the right to torture animals ‑ because this is indeed animal torture ‑ without any good reason or purpose, just for the vanity? This is not normal living of these animals, and there is no possibility to create that kind of natural conditions and habitats for them in case of farming. So I'm just asking, to conclude, when does the Commission consider to come with the answer and hopefully the prevention of fur farming?

Mr President, Belém was an underachievement. But now the EU needs to lead bravely among the 100 countries that have committed to act on climate change. Because when science and politics collide, science will always win. When facts and opinions collide, the facts don't change. And if opinions don't, the result is going to be bad. The costs are tenfold more than any investment we should be making at the moment to slow down climate change. We would need to ban, of course, the use of fossil fuels. We would need to speed up the circular economy. We would need to act on supergrids and renewable energies in Europe. We know the problem, we know what to do, and we even have the money because only less than 5 % is in sustainable finance. Now the question is: is the Commission bold enough and brave enough to act against the political populism?

Mr President, this is a good report which focuses on the increased challenges to security policy, competition for raw materials and the need for the EU to have a stronger Arctic policy and presence. However, I would have liked the report to have been three things more vigorous. Environmental issues are mentioned, but the Arctic EIA, which was in the previous report and the basis for importing raw materials from the Arctic into the EU, is lacking. Equally, the rights of indigenous peoples and the principle that land use in their territories is not carried out without their consent, as well as the requirement that the Sámi, the only indigenous people in the EU, have their own representation in the EU, are lacking. And yes, it would also be worthwhile for the EU to say more strongly that we are still behind the policy that the Arctic is a heritage of public good, peace and research, which we will defend beyond local militant crises.

Mr President, we know that climate change worsens the biodiversity threat, and we have the Kunming Biodiversity Framework to actually prevent the loss of biodiversity. So these two factors need to be fed into CITES in the future, in a science-based approach when judging the species. And I hope you could go in front of this. My second point is the better enforcement that the Council and the Commission already highlighted. This needs more resources. This really needs resources also under the upcoming MFF, and we need special targeted resources for online crime, better engagement of OLAF on an EU base to search the cases, also when it comes to transit. Last but not least, on traceability: trophy hunting is one dangerous factor in wildlife crime. It catches in the wild the breed. So I just appeal to the Commission to put in force the ban on trophy hunting and any trophies to be transited through the EU or to be taken to the EU. The EU needs to lead in ambition.

Mr President, ten per cent of women of childbearing age suffer from endometriosis, a very painful and everyday life-threatening lifelong condition. It is also a major cause of infertility. It's under-examined, under-diagnosed, and under-treated. I hope that this debate will indeed serve as a wake-up call to what kind of gender health gap we have. Women go to the doctor more often, are more half-fit and become less well-treated because their symptoms or illnesses are not so well understood. Men, on the other hand, often go to the doctor too late and too little, and the result is just as bad, naturally for them. So it is not a question of who is being treated, we must treat both men and women, European people, well. I therefore hope that this will serve as an alarm clock for the Commission and that the Commission will then also prepare an entire women's health programme, which will draw attention to the need for further research into the various diseases, treatments, diagnostics, training of doctors and raising public awareness, as well as research into medicinal products, in which women are clearly under-represented. These problems will not be solved by the Member States alone. We need a common European will, and I believe that the Commission will also find this.

Mr President, the Hungarian Pride marchers rose up to defend the rule of law, law and order, and human rights. They defended not only the rights of sexual minorities, but the rights of all minorities, women's rights and human rights. This is important to remember at a time when these values are historically under threat. We must all stand up and demand the implementation of these basic principles. I hope that the Commission, together with the Member States, will ensure that the rule of law and total non-discrimination in the form of an anti-discrimination directive are finally put into effect.

Prime Minister, you said that we need a Europe that has the capacity to act and not just to react. All the luck and courage to move forward with that goal in the Council, because that is what we need at the moment. Europe will never be surprised again. We need a Union of readiness based on a broad concept of security – whether it is about fighting pandemics, the adequacy of medicines, the sufficiency and quality of food, the adequate fight against climate change that is falling into our arms and raising the level of ambition, or whether it is about preparedness for military insecurity or other types of attacks around us. We need a broad concept of security which, as you said, also takes social security into account. Because, with the erosion of democracy and the rise of extremism, our capacity to act is also paralysed, and it can actually be the worst threat that could happen to us. We must have the ability to turn problems into challenges and challenges into opportunities, and that is what the Investment Union is all about: how we transform our economy and industry into green, competitive, ICT-enabled and sustainable in the long term, socially and economically productive. And this is what we have the ability to do in Europe, the best we can globally. Let's grab it with two hands. Moving the money towards efficient competitive production, increasing national wealth and taking care of Europe.

Mr President, we were just talking here about the catastrophic climate change that is falling into our arms and the need to react to it. Most of it comes as a result of economic activity. During the last session, we talked about human rights, mistreatment of workers and women's rights, especially in clothing factories, for example. Most of it is solved in economic activity. An increasing number of European companies want to be responsible and are responsible. But the longer our supply chains are and the more complex different products are transported into our everyday consumption processes, the more difficult it is to transparently see what these impacts are and whether sustainable solutions have been built for animals, people, the environment and the future as a whole. That is why I ask and wonder very much about the Council's position. Why do we not want to support those companies that are responsible? Why don't we give them a chance to tell us about good work? Why do we not make public procurement a priority? Why do we not give them priority in consumer choice? What is so difficult about it that the Council has not been able to adopt the already stripped-down and compromised directive on corporate responsibility? I would like to say "shame on you". I know that the Belgian Presidency has tried its best, so the accusation is not against it, but against the whole Council and the Member States for this behaviour. And I hope this will change.

Mr President, first of all, I would like to thank you and congratulate the Commission for this excellent activity. Poverty is, of course, exclusion from adequate financial resources, but it is much, much more. It is exclusion from education, it is exclusion from proper work, it is exclusion from necessary healthy diets, from health care, and it is exclusion from our societies and decision making. Combating poverty is extremely important, because poverty – understood in the larger context – is a violation against human rights. So yes, we do have a moral duty to work to implement the SDGs and to fight against poverty. But we do have a self-interest to do that also, because we cannot sustain civilised civilisation with increasing poverty and separation between different groups of people. We cannot solve environmental problems and we cannot implement Green Deal. We cannot build our societies with all the full intellectual capacity and the work capacity, what the people would have. Just to put it very boldly: we cannot build our human world and we cannot solve any of our problems without tackling poverty. And as you, Commissioner, said, yes, we do have the money, we hopefully do have the will and we do have the means and equal proportional taxation global wide and combating tax evasion is an important part of that. Let me conclude by saying, as it states in the UN building, ‘We do have the resources for everybody’s needs, but not even for single person’s greed’.

Mr President, there is no peace without human rights. There is no rule of law without human rights. And there is no justice and justice system without human rights. There is not economic prosperity, development or well-being of the people. So this is the reason why we need to be worried about the fact how the situation of human rights have lately deteriorated all over the world and yes, indeed, here in the European Union as well. So this is the time when we need to unite and responsibly act on law-based solutions to enforce human rights. What they can be –just to pick up a couple of examples as wishes for the Commission – one is the humanitarian visas, what Heidi Hautala was mentioning. Another one is due diligence regulations for companies. And the third one is – that I hope that the Commission will start exploring – when ecocide constitutes a genocide and is a crime against humanity and how this is breaching human right for the clean environment and by that matter, environmental rights are part of human rights.

–Mr President, I am just wondering how history will see us and how history will judge us with this Gaza crisis. The EU is losing very fast its moral grounds and moral leadership in the global scene. So we are just justifying a genocide in front of us. We justify war crimes because even the war has the rules how to act. We justify an Israeli invasion for a long time before this crisis. How could we close our eyes? And with the UNRWA, as said, there have been claims, but all people and organisations are innocent as long as not proven different. And none of these claims so far has been proven to be right. Then what about if we would talk about Ukraine and Russia like we talk with the Palestinian-Israeli war and crisis? How would that sound? And, dear colleagues, Commission, how would it sound if we would start talking about the Palestinian crisis like the Ukrainian war?

Mr President, (start of speech off mic) ... This is a very important part of the legislation what we are dealing with – because the environmental crime is the fourth biggest crime and among the most profitable ones. It is ruthless. It is not caring about people or the environment, and it is cross-border. So this is the first time we have a proper set of regulation that actually deals with those countries that have been safe havens for the perpetrators. We need a set of coherent rules and procedures in the EU. We need better police, more resources and competence on prosecution and on the courts, and last but not least, we need to set the criteria of ecocide as a part of environmental crimes.

Mr President, first of all I would like to thank the Commission for putting this proposal forward. But I would have hoped, as we can hear from the ENVI comments, that the ambition level would have been higher, knowing that a major load of the chemicals, both hazardous for the environment and hazardous for human health, are a big part of detergents and surfactants. So I hope that this review will come soon. The good part of this regulation is the possibility for bio-based products, which we actually know are much more effective, also to combat antimicrobial resistance in hospitals. So this would be the way we should proceed, and in the long run ban all harmful substances and toxic substances, as well as phosphates, in detergents.

Madam President, I could actually start with the same words as I did with the hate speech. The hate against the Muslim and Jewish minorities. The targets for the next UN Women Conference here, too. So, it is the bigger issue with the totalitarianism and negative developments in our societies in the EU that I think that we should tackle really seriously. And then what are the tools? Of course, the tools are very much in all the groups the same. It is zero tolerance for any kind of hate speech, legally binding rules – both in digital media and in real life – for this boiling effect of insulting people because of their backgrounds. We need to back up the people, the diversity and stop the hate speech as long as we can. The next steps are two things. First of all – I am campaigning and very great supporter – we really would need to ban conversion therapies in Europe. They are against human rights, they are against dignity and they are against everything that we know about medicine and the good physical care of people. We would need to have better compulsory education about the issue and we would need to have special social and medical streams and services for LGBTIQ people. They are getting older, they need their own elderly people’s care, their own medical care centres and issues like that.

Mr President, globally, we have three priorities at the moment in gender and women’s rights. Firstly, we have had very good progress, but backlash through the growing populism and totalitarianism is threatening women’s rights. It’s increasing hate speech, it’s increasing attitudes limiting women’s personal rights, democratic rights, sexual and reproductive rights, and their rights in the work life. So the whole set of strengthening legally and globally and in all Member States, the right-based approach is the first priority and zero tolerance of hatred towards the gender of women in any forms. Second priority is, of course, the integration of women and gender aspects in all parts of the policies. And this, again, is this old-fashioned discussion about quotas – quotas in business life, quotas in public life and quotas in decision-making. And this is something that I hope that the EU could step up in the global sphere in its talks. And last but not least is, of course, the poverty issue. Issues like pay transparency can work when we are actually dealing with the fact that women are not either getting the same salary for the same work, not to talk about for the same value of the work. And by tackling the pay transparencies, we can tackle the poverty in one part and with the social security on the other part.

Mr President, I hope we have learned enough from the experience of the Second World War that our morals are strong enough and our systems strong enough to combat hate speech and ensure zero tolerance for hate speech that either hides behind different religious ideas, abuses them, or uses ethnic or other backgrounds of groups of people as grounds for hatred and discrimination. In this respect, we are on the slow-moving path of right-wing extremism, nationalism and, in many respects, totalitarianism. This is the famous eleventh moment when, as a community, whatever our political or national background, we must awaken and rise above this and stand up for humanity, democracy, the fundamental values of the EU and a viable life in the future. I would therefore like to conclude by thanking the Commissioner for his very good speech and for his determination in dealing with these issues.

Mr President, human rights and fundamental rights now need, perhaps more than for many decades, a defender within the European Union, as can be deduced from some of the speeches that have been made here. Human rights and fundamental rights are the cornerstone of the EU Treaties and of all EU action, the hard lesson we learned after the Second World War. They are the central, if not the central, principle of the rule of law and, in order to implement it, we need stronger powers, competences for both the Commission and, after all, a broader understanding of human and fundamental rights, both in terms of women's rights and in terms of social and economic rights. I hope that together we can move in this direction. We must behave in a civilised manner if we want civilisation, which includes human and fundamental rights.

Madam President, I wholeheartedly ask all of the Members of the European Parliament to vote in favour of this directive. It is the update of equality bodies legislation based on the new steps that we have in regulations concerning equality, like pay transparency. It is mostly technical, but the most important part is ensuring the independence of these actors from external influence. Without implementation, any good thoughts and regulations are just empty words. It is very saddening and telling that this is used as a weapon in false premises for populist policies because, for example, these audit structures do exist according to national legislation, and there was strong unity in both committees to support this change.

Mr President, violence against women remains the most widespread, under-reported and under-reported violence in the world. It is outrageous that in the 2020s we still have to fight for women to have full immunity and the right to a non-violent life in societies. It is outrageous that we have to debate this same issue within the European Union as well. As we are now ratifying the Istanbul Convention, which, through the directive, prohibits all violence against women, albeit in a rather limited form, it has been deeply confusing that we have had to confuse with the Council whether rape – the most typical form of violence against women – is included in this directive or not. I believe that this grievance deserves the attention of all European women and men and the realisation that it is not always the Member State that defends the interests of its citizens the most. Often this is the European Parliament and the Commission in their own actions. Women are people. That is why women also have rights and human rights, and women's rights are therefore part of human rights. This means that women have the right to freedom from physical violence, psychological violence, but also structural violence, such as the lack of services or the denial of sexual and reproductive health rights. The European Union must be the leading force in the lead teams for the complete elimination of violence against women, both internally and externally.

Mr President, I would like to thank both the Commission and the Council for their very clear and positive statements. At the Finnish border, the situation is calm and under control from the perspective of border control and human rights. We have had good cooperation with Europol, Frontex, the Commission and the Council, but it is not just the external border of Finland, but the longest external border of the EU with Russia. That is why we need a united, strong policy. We need more resources for Europol and Frontex. We need a clear framework and a legitimate mandate for hybrid influence. We need a new policy to stop the instrumentalisation of people. We need a common European intelligence service and a uniform policy on refugees and immigration. Hybrid influencing seeks to destroy Western values and the fundamental values of the EU. It is therefore essential that, while we take better and stronger care of our own borders, we take care of international agreements, human rights and the rule of law. Otherwise, we're as bad as the evildoers. This includes a genuine and effective opportunity to apply for asylum, international protection and either to receive it or to return it. This mechanism is used by Finland. So let's take care of our core values and take care of our borders. These are not contradictory, but mutually supportive tools.

Mr President, the European Union was set up to improve people's well-being, not to promote the interests of the Member States or powerful lobbyists. That is why we need stronger powers in the areas of health, welfare and social policy, and to ensure sufficient resources also in the areas of taxation and tax avoidance. This also means that we need to move to a normal decision-making system in all the major policy areas of the Union, and then also to normal qualified majority voting in the Council. This is also necessary because enlargement is impossible without reforming our decision-making system. Knowing how difficult this reform among Member States is, one option to consider could be that the necessary reforms are carried out within the Eurogroup on the basis of the principle that all those who wish to join it can join later.